Hubert Dreyfus on Husserl and Heidegger: Section 5

[ghandi8749]

Wow they just skipped over Sartre, which is a major disappointment.

[dantean]

From what year is this?

[Pulchism]

This one was pretty sharp. Dreyfus seems like a bit of a legend.

[yukaigrrl921]

The very end is so hilarious yet epic.

[russellkua]

ah hah. philosophical bitchiness.

[frommbuk1]

I wondered how long it would take to get to the obvious fact, overlooked by existentialists, that we are not free-floating intellects but embodied creatures, for want of a better word. Has there ever been a human being who wanted to be miserable, or alone, or unloved, or cold, wet, hungry, depressed... and so on? We know that there are specific human needs, common to all cultures, times and places which each culture attempts to satisf in its way. In brief, read Erich Fromm.

[LooksAeterna]

I don't get Heidegger at all. He seems to be bent on thinking about precisely that which is not the domain of thinking about. Hence the horrible verbal gymnastics and the deplorable French school of con artistry a la Derridard etc.

[colourmegone]

Re Nihilism. The Romans considered the Christians to be nihilists because they believed literally in the end of the world, and still do. Many modern Christian sects are based on the idea of an immanent Armegeddon, from the 7th Day Adventists to the Rev Jim Jones to the current belief in the Rapture which was expounded by the Christian Right and specifically by the Rev Jerry Falwell & his disciple President Reagan. And amazingly we're still here!

[sphynxrhythm]

Fascinating - thanks for posting this!

[wonderingworlds]

@sphynxrhythm ... . . . .. and so, my little children; at the end of this bedtime story, ...... the Six wise men, each came up with his own conclusion about the unknown entity that, all Six had examined blindfolded, ...... while the king and his people, having their eyes open, knew all along, the unknown entity, was just an Elephant. And for tonight, no other bedtime story, ,... its time to sleep......, face reality....

[EvanWells1]

Sartre definitely had something with bad faith. But that was a decisively poignant identification of a singular phenomenon. That Sartre fell into what "Heidegger is trying to overcome" is a bit off. Sartre "endorsed" what Heidegger had laid down as his own groundwork which ignored historicism completely. Sartre took this myopic view and made his "contribution" by denying any chance of authenticity. Later Heidegger focused on language, but still sadly neglected Husserl /Kant too much

[pakk82]

@pulsating123 hahaha i feel you man

[pulsating123]

@pakk82 turns out it is there, it just didn't show up before.. takes a while, best to keep that in mind before I try posting the same thing again. i've actually done that before :P

[pulsating123]

you can change learned habits by changing behavior. drive a fork lift every day for a year, to the store, to work, everywhere. After that year get in a car again and try to drive it. It will be difficult. I find it interesting that the amygdala is on constant record mode, recording all behaviors to use later. We use operant conditioning when learning a new language, an instrument, etc. The movements and patterns become largely unconscious, but you can change it by consciously changing behavior

[luitek]

I finished the division 1 podcasts last year, and am half-way done with division 2. They are simply fascinating! It's great to listen to this as a quick synopsis of Heideger's concepts. This interviewer is great as well! Unfortunate though, that the audio is out of sync :-(

[analogious]

I like Hubert Dreyfus. First I tried to follow his online course on Heidegger, but kept falling asleep each time I try to listen to it. Now I just use his recordings when I want to fall asleep.

[soursourapples]

Wierd i did exactly the same thing. I got to part 3. And i also use the podcasts to fall asleep. Now i just put them on my phone and listen on the train. BUT have you checked out his podcasts on moby dick and the odyssey? they will make you dream weird dreams!

[Erkynar]

It is incredibly interresting to listen to this. However, there is a slight tendency to view reasonings to be evolutionary is essence: one thing leading to another and building onto that, ridding itself of the useless and adding something new (better). Strikes me as slightly... wrong for some reason.

[soursourapples]

i didn't pick that up, can you elaborate? Personally I don't think Hubert Dreyfus is saying the epochs evolved but just changed, I might be wrong.

[Erkynar]

I might be wrong as well... :) It's been a while since I looked through these clips, so I'd be hard pressed right now to give more exact comments.

My point, though, is that, while there certainly has been a chain of thought that has followed us from past to present, that chain is not necessarily a chain of worse=>better, but rather a chain of changes, period.

I've grown a bit sensitive to this kind of thinking that puts the present at the peak of some sort of ever rising evolutionary pyramid.

[Erkynar]

cont...

But, as I said, I might have grown overly sensitive... Right now I couldn't say. :)

[wungabunga]

I just like hearing smart people talk.

[Sgirardacus]

I think Sartre deserves more credit than is given here. Especially his ideas on authenticity and bad faith.

[bleon8st]

@Sgirardacus Sartre surrendered to materialism.

[michaeldaley13]

December 6th, 1987

[begily]

in what year did this discussion take place?

[Samanmotlagh]

This series was great and easily accesible breakdown of heidegger.

[BACHPHIA]

Hubert Dreyfus is one of the most brilliant readers of Heidegger. I have not found any brilliant reading of Heidegger in spanish language. H. Freyfus'

[mal4mac]

There is no distinction between subject and object when things go well. When driving you don't notice the clutch as an object. A subject without desire still has a disposition (B&T p.173). Being and time obviously exist! They are ways we see the world. Sartre is not the father of existentialism. Kirkegaard? Magee condemns Sartre in his book "Confessions". Sartre though Stalin was a good guy, some morals!

[Samanmotlagh]

Just your last sentence was a bit wierd in defending heidegger.

Should we detract anything from heidegger because he was a nazi? Or sartre because he supported the soviet union?

[mal4mac]

Yes. It makes them morally repugnant. But this doesn't mean that we can't use their philosophies, if we are so inclined.

[iggypot]

that critique of sartre is so worn out - he came out against the ussr when he learned of their dirtier tactics like all the other loyal communists had to- kierkegaard may have planted the seeds of existentialism but sartre made it into a legitimate system of its own - with no connection or reliance on ancient metaphysics like kierkegaard. actually, nietzsche is the REAL existentialist...can't forget fredreich!

[nakedhand]

I think they are focusing on the phenomenologists here, primarily. Nietzsche isnt one.

[phiphers]

chuck norris kicks both their asses...

[paulatwe]

HEAR here: note ye all that i credited this (phiphers') "stupid" remark with a THUMBS UP

it is true

question is: maketh it sense?

[iggypot]

so is heidegger saying there is no distinction between subject and object? what about when the subject has no desire, then is being identical with time, or is there simply no being and no time? This discussion was quite complex, and i find it funny that they're thumbing their noses at sartre - who is probably now considered the father of existentialism. Sartre WILL remain important for his thoughts on morality and art - for coining that creed: 'live creatively.'

[gen6k]

yes in that sense, sartre preceeds all of the other phenomenologists by not thinking that he can actually separate himself into an objective reality outside the self. if the pronounciation of creavitity is not done, Being and Time wouldn't exist.

[wittgenmarx]

Too dismissive of Satre.

[vertex21]

I disagree. Don't you think that it hurts Satre's project that he thinks he's understood Heidegger, but ends up endorsing exactly what Heidegger is trying to overcome?

The Letter on Humanism really illustrates how Satre doesn't even get above the essentia/existentia dichotomy.

I still like some of his literature though...

[TomasuRikabe3]

Maybe he didn't misunderstand Heidegger, maybe he simply disagreed with him. After all, even if he only understood heidegger a little, its very clear that Heidegger is attacking the cartesian view that Sartre is putting forth. I suspect this is because of Sartre's obsession with freedom, which isn't as easily come by in Heidegger's picture.

[vertex21]

Maybe-- but if you read the Letter on Humanism, Heidegger clearly describes precisely the confusion in Satre's reading and the nonsensical interpretation of essentia/existentia that follows. I find it hard to believe that Satre was much of a philosopher, and existentialism, at least the French school, has shown again and again that it has no rigor for thought. I've never heard such large concepts being thrown around so carelessly.

[mal4mac]

What about Merleau Ponty? Dreyfuss really sings his praises for filling in blanks left by Heidegger. Foucault and Derrida also get much praise for enagaging the biggest question -- what do we do with our 'orrible anxiety?

[touchingstoves]

w00t!

[earthypeople]

more please

[Zadokor]

Excellent indeed

[Krelianx]

I can't help but feel entirely uncomfortable with Dreyfus here too. To say for Heidegger perception is identical to seeing is enormously misleading, since he doesn't take perception as something different than acting in the traditional sense. What he does say is that perception of objects, in the traditional sense, restricts our understanding of being to categorial determinations of present-at-hand entities. Perception or intuition, in the broader sense, is radically reinterpreted, not  ignored

[paulatwe]

I must say i find "seeing" to be too restrictive an interpretation of perception. It makes it look passive in stead (note space) of active. eg The "archaic" expression: to listen in, into the eradio.

Do needlework. (when not female: imagine to) Prick yourself. You then feel the sting in: the point of the needle, rather than (or at least as much as) in your fingertip.

One perceives TOWARDS

[flame0430]

Wow, I'm going to have to watch this one soon, best of the series, huh?

[TheAlby21]

@flame0430

Absolutely the best of the series. Never has Heidegger been so clearly explained on film. Thank you a million times.

[randyhelzerman]

Awesome. One of the best, perhaps the best, of the whole McGee series.

[Kaaru]

Better than Quine? :-)

[randyhelzerman]

LOL Kaaru, I have to admit even better than Quine :-) Although being more familier with Quine I really didn't learn much from McGee's conversation with Quine...

[mal4mac]

His name is Bryan *Magee*, writer of the best introduction to philosophy I have ever read: "Confessions of a Philosopher". Dreyfuss has written the best commentary on Being and Time, which is totally necessary read if you are ever to understand Heidegger. This is the best interview the BBC has ever put out! So good to see it again, the BBC is too dumb these days to reshow it...